Honestly, with this economy, this should have been a slam dunk for the Republicans. The fact that it wasn't *should* really inspire some soul searching. I'm hopeful that some amount of across-the-aisle work can actually be done since Obama can't be reelected for a third term (so the Republicans can't make it their singular mission to block his every move, it would be inexcusable this time around).

Here's an interesting article from CNN.com on the Republicans' problem in the election: Obama's Majority. Romney took a beating from minorities, Hispanics, single women, and younger voters. He won the white vote by 20 points but that segment of the electorate is shrinking ... it fell from 76% to 74% of the electorate between 2008 and 2012.

I don't think this election signalled any seismic shifts in the poltical landscape. Obama ran a better/smarter campaign and kept the Presidency. Democratic gains in the Senate have more to do with Tea party candidates acting like imbeciles than voters policy opinions IMO. I tend to ignore comments about how the GOP has become 'irrelevant'. They will continue to be a force to reckon with. They may have some long term problems where their ideological base conflicts with certain demographic trends, but believe me when I say the money that supports them isn't going to allow that state of affairs to persist for very long. They will start winning big when the party (not just a few highly visible token candidates) moves towards the center.

People will miss that it once meant something to be Southern or Midwestern. It doesn't mean much now, except for the climate. The question, “Where are you from?” doesn't lead to anything odd or interesting. They live somewhere near a Gap store, and what else do you need to know? - Garrison Keillor

Here's an interesting article from CNN.com on the Republicans' problem in the election: Obama's Majority. Romney took a beating from minorities, Hispanics, single women, and younger voters. He won the white vote by 20 points but that segment of the electorate is shrinking ... it fell from 76% to 74% of the electorate between 2008 and 2012.

I think this is the conundrum. The republican's have a majority of people agree with many of their points - especially on fiscal issues. Hispanics traditionally "should" support republicans with their strong religious background and financial responsibility. But unfortunately the republicans have also embraced social issues and immigration issues that do not support their growth as a party.

If the republican party were to embrace social change - i.e. gay rights, women's rights, etc. and become more central on immigration issues, they would kill the democrats. They have the high ground on entitlements, and our dependency on government, but people vote based on their hearts... which come down to social issues....

A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

Democratic gains in the Senate have more to do with Tea party candidates acting like imbeciles than voters policy opinions IMO.

That explain explains some of their losses but not the ones in North Dakota or Montana where Democrats really had no business winning. A year ago people thought the Republicans would sweep the Senate because Democrats had to defend significantly more vulnerable seats than they did. Now here we are in 2012 and the Republican lost 2 seats.

I do think Republicans will retool but I don't think it'll be a quick process. Marco Rubio isn't suddenly going to make everything better with Hispanics. Nor can Republicans appeal to women and young voters unless they tone down their rhetoric on social issues. Social issues are non-negotiable for many on the religious right so it'll be interesting to see how that is addressed.

In talking with an extremest right wing friend of mine last night, he reminded me that there has only been one time in the past 100 years that a republican has beat an incumbent Democrat president... and that was Ronald Reagan. Romney is not even close to Reagan.

He also pointed out that this race is the closest of any of those other situations, so the country is not as left as the media lets on.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Time makes more converts than reason." - Thomas Paine Common Sense.

In talking with an extremest right wing friend of mine last night, he reminded me that there has only been one time in the past 100 years that a republican has beat an incumbent Democrat president... and that was Ronald Reagan. Romney is not even close to Reagan.

Romney got the same percentage of the white vote as when Reagan beat Carter. The problem comes back to the fact that if Republicans can't appeal to minorities, their chances of winning national elections in the future are not very good.

In talking with an extremest right wing friend of mine last night, he reminded me that there has only been one time in the past 100 years that a republican has beat an incumbent Democrat president... and that was Ronald Reagan. Romney is not even close to Reagan.

He also pointed out that this race is the closest of any of those other situations, so the country is not as left as the media lets on.

Parse it any way you want, but for me the most telling issue is that the GOP couldn't unseat a President with employment around 8%.

The national vote for Prez was nearly 50/50 so I don't think you can take anything away from that. I think when you factor in the State initiates, then yes, on social issues, the country is trending left. I've always felt that when fiscal and social issues are combined, the country overall is slightly right-of-center.

"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

I think this is the conundrum. The republican's have a majority of people agree with many of their points - especially on fiscal issues. ..

That is the conundrum - the polling shows that they are underinformed on economic issues. The majority think the debt is still growing, spending still growing, socialism is on the march...they need new information channels so they can be an actual force to be reckoned with, rather than the uninformed voting bloc.

Originally posted by michaelskis

so the country is not as left as the media lets on.

I don't know what "media" this is. I watch very little TV, but when I do the commercials (save for Stewart and Colbert) are all trying to get old people with money to consume their product or service. That is not a liberal majority, unless the commentators are trying to tell you that the levdizt hordes are at your door and you need to buy gold.

-------
Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.

Who would have thought even 10 years ago that a traditionally solid red state like CO would twice elect a candidate like Obama, have two Democratic Senators, and legalize marijuana? Pretty crazy to think that CO is now a blue state. Same with VA. Even NV is probably blue now. FL and NC are no longer solidly GOP. Obama has reset the electoral map by turning red states blue. I think this is the big takeaway from the election. Outside of the old south, the GOP is no longer competitive in a lot of places where it used to be. The demographic trends in this country do not look good for the Republicans moving forward. And if Obama won the Latino vote in some degree of generational permanence for the Democrats the GOP is totally screwed.

I don't know what "media" this is. I watch very little TV, but when I do the commercials (save for Stewart and Colbert) are all trying to get old people with money to consume their product or service. That is not a liberal majority, unless the commentators are trying to tell you that the levdizt hordes are at your door and you need to buy gold.

Media is almost all of the TV networks and most of the papers. Fox on the other hand is so far extremest right-wing that they have no credibility what so ever.

I don't watch any TV news and we don't even bother having cable. When someone says something that catches my attention, I go to a wide range of websites to see what the heck they are talking about. Some of these do include NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, USA Today, Huffington Post, and several local station websites.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Time makes more converts than reason." - Thomas Paine Common Sense.

I think many conservatives learned that avoiding the "liberal media" really did them a disservice this election. They were completely blindsided by the election's results since they so rarely left the echo chamber.

Even more strident partisanship, I fear. There are hardly any moderates left in the House or the Senate after these last two elections, so how could it be otherwise? And the party of 'No' can be fully expected to double-down on 'No' for the next four years.

Hello? What about all the gains made by women candidates, the number of women in the U.S. Senate going up to 20 from 17 (despite the retirements of two long-time female senators), etc. Hopefully it's a sign of things to come.

Hello? What about all the gains made by women candidates, the number of women in the U.S. Senate going up to 20 from 17 (despite the retirements of two long-time female senators), etc. Hopefully it's a sign of things to come.

True, can't forget about that. Big win by Elizabeth Warren over a pretty popular incumbent in Scott Brown here in MA.

I think this is the conundrum. The republican's have a majority of people agree with many of their points - especially on fiscal issues. Hispanics traditionally "should" support republicans with their strong religious background and financial responsibility. But unfortunately the republicans have also embraced social issues and immigration issues that do not support their growth as a party.

If the republican party were to embrace social change - i.e. gay rights, women's rights, etc. and become more central on immigration issues, they would kill the democrats. They have the high ground on entitlements, and our dependency on government, but people vote based on their hearts... which come down to social issues....

If Romney had run as the moderate governor he once was in Mass. and not pandered to the wingnuts in his party, I suspect that it might have had a different outcome. It was a lost opportunity.

Maybe he should have done more pandering to the right. Another person in the office said that they just heard that Romney received 3 million less votes from registered republicans than McCain did 4 years ago. That is more than the margin in the popular vote.

I can't find anything about it online though.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Time makes more converts than reason." - Thomas Paine Common Sense.

Maybe he should have done more pandering to the right. Another person in the office said that they just heard that Romney received 3 million less votes from registered republicans than McCain did 4 years ago. That is more than the margin in the popular vote.

I can't find anything about it online though.

That number sounds a bit dubious to me.

But I think stepping toward the center would allow the GOP to perhaps capture several million votes, particularly in key growing demographics that have been alienated in recent years. That really is critical to their long-term survival. And remember, Reagan was all about the big tent.

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Several belated ideas. Part of the reason Romney lost Ohio is that he lost the cities. Looking at the Ohio map, it was pretty red except for the urban areas. The R's have a long history of ignoring/demonizing the urban areas.. Second, it's never good when the ticket loses the candidates home states. The RR ticket lost every single one. Sometimes it comes down to the candidate. Talking to my family, who is a mix of D, R and don't give a rip, Mourdock was not deemed to be a worthy sucessor to Lugar. This was before he developed his case of foot in mouth disease.

But I think stepping toward the center would allow the GOP to perhaps capture several million votes, particularly in key growing demographics that have been alienated in recent years. That really is critical to their long-term survival. And remember, Reagan was all about the big tent.

Could be.

I rather just seem the republican party go away and the libertarian party step up.

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Time makes more converts than reason." - Thomas Paine Common Sense.

I rather just seem the republican party go away and the libertarian party step up.

Or a split of the R and L factions. Let the republicans keep the religious right, and have the libertarians go with socially moderate views with fiscally conservative principles.

I like a three (or four) party system that give more flexibility to the electorate. I hope that in 2016 the networks will give more third party candidates airtime and debate seats...

My favorite line from the LA Times Op-Ed...

That does not mean a conservative cannot become president. A pragmatic fiscal conservative with an enlightened view of immigration and a tolerant attitude on social issues could do quite well. Romney could have run as just such a candidate.

A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

Or a split of the R and L factions. Let the republicans keep the religious right, and have the libertarians go with socially moderate views with fiscally conservative principles.

I like a three (or four) party system that give more flexibility to the electorate. I hope that in 2016 the networks will give more third party candidates airtime and debate seats...

My favorite line from the LA Times Op-Ed...

I think the two party system is strangling us. There's no middle ground. A libertarian faction isn't going to do it for middle America either-one thing they fear more than too much government is one that bare bones when it comes down to it.

And yes, that quote is a good one. Romney won the governorship in a decidedly blue state, NJ's current governor also did. I know Gov. Christie was embarrassed by some of the nutters in the GOP in this election and tried to distance himself from that faction while still trying to support Romney. While I am not a huge fan of Christie, I give him credit for dealing with some very hard issues in NJ that needed to be dealt with and forging ahead.

"He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?"Jeremiah 22:16

Or a split of the R and L factions. Let the republicans keep the religious right, and have the libertarians go with socially moderate views with fiscally conservative principles.

I like a three (or four) party system that give more flexibility to the electorate. I hope that in 2016 the networks will give more third party candidates airtime and debate seats...

My favorite line from the LA Times Op-Ed...

I don't think a libertarian party can capture double-digit percentages of the electorate, but I'm all for a viable third party to ascend with the independents that fled the R party. If a libertarian party can capture 5-6-7% and have an idea or two every once in a while, that will help our mess too. Something needs to happen. We were in Quebec during the conventions in Sept and the coverage was broad and much more intelligent than we get here. Every bar we sat in people started asking us about our politics (because our French was not up to snuff, it was easy to tell where we were from); the tone of the questions was often 'what the heck is going on down there??'. Hope for change.

-------
Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.

Hello? What about all the gains made by women candidates, the number of women in the U.S. Senate going up to 20 from 17 (despite the retirements of two long-time female senators), etc. Hopefully it's a sign of things to come.

QFT.

Women made up 53% of the electorate this time around, and they voted 55% for Obama, which isn't surprising because so much of the GOP rhetoric, especially from the Tea Partyers and the social conservatives, is NOT just against equal rights for women, some of it is just outright anti-woman period.

Originally posted by kjel

If Romney had run as the moderate governor he once was in Mass. and not pandered to the wingnuts in his party, I suspect that it might have had a different outcome. It was a lost opportunity.

The real issue for the Republicans is that even moderate Republicans (which I think Romney actually is) have to pander to the far right in order to win in the primaries. That means that even if they were to attempt to change their positions after they're nominated, their words would be out there in the public record, so moderate voters won't believe them and conservative voters will think they're "traitors". In that respect, the primary system hampers centrist candidates attempting to pull the Republican Party back towards the middle.

It takes a long time for a party to break free from its base. The New Deal Democrats took thirty years to shake loose from their laissez-faire, segregationist base that it had had since the Civil War, and that took the Great Depression, WW II, the Cold War, and the Kennedy assassination to do it -- and that came with a high price in the 1970s and since for them. They seem to have put together a new coalition (they've won 4 of the last 6 presidential elections) that doesn't make a lot of older Dems happy but that does fit the America of today much better.

I don't know how successful the Republicans can be in shaking loose from their base. Democrats have always tended to be open to compromise (consider that national Dems balanced having segregationists and civil rights liberals in the same party for a couple of decades!), but in recent decades, the Republicans have largely banished anybody with progressive thinking from their ranks on a national level. Their politicians have become enslaved by the ideologues on the Far Right.

I suspect that it's going to take a crushing defeat on the national level, and maybe more than one, to convince the GOP to move to the center. That's what it took for the Dems to change, and I don't suspect it will be easier for the more conservative party to do so.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. -- John F. Kennedy, January 20, 1961

I rather just seem the republican party go away and the libertarian party step up.

What platform would they take, though? Ron Paul and Gary Johnson reflect two very different kinds of libertarian ideology. I have a lot of respect for Johnson, because he's far more pragmatic, practical and moderate than others that have taken up the Libertarian torch. So many prominent libertarians try too hard to be ideologically pure and uncompromising; they have a strong objectivist (Ayn Rand as gospel), crackpot (shortwave listening, tinfoil hat wearing, collodial silver ingestng) or Austrian School (Paul Rand) bent, with no recognition of the concepts of market failure, tyranny of small decisions,tyrrany of the majority, social cost, or social contract. The radical libertarianism that is often espoused is akin to pure communism on the left and fascism on the right; radical and ultimately unworkable.

I don't want to see the Republican party go away. I believe a marketplace of ideologies is essential to maintain a healthy democracy. However, the Republican party, in its rightward march, seems to be evolving into a regional or niche party. Sure, I'm liberal, but I also recognize the corruption inherent in a democracy/republic when one party remains dominant for decades; e.g. PRI-controlled Mexico.

I'd like to see the emergence of third parties, but with first-past-the-post voting and single member legislative districts, it's not going to happen in the US outside of a local level.

Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell. -- Edward Abbey

What's kind of ironic is that social conservatism and the Tea Party are still pretty effective in local elections. However the national party is not going to be able to make significant inroads with minorities and youth if local Republicans don't give this up. This is quite the conundrum and I frankly don't see a way the GOP can survive as anything more than a permanent opposition party until they solve this.

I'm actually looking forward to seeing how Republicans are going to handle this situation. There's already talk of the Tea Party types breaking off into a third party which would then make both parties and the conservative movement irrelevant nationally.